get_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining what 'ready', 'available', 'needs_review', and 'blocked' states mean and that they don't imply the agent has saved the file. Still, it doesn't explain whether task state is persisted/immutable, what happens after retry, or any rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense run-on covering multiple state transitions and edge cases in a single paragraph with no headings or structure. It front-loads little and intersperses multiple concerns (ready, download.status, needs_review, blocked/waiting_for), making it hard to scan. It could be split into a purpose line and a status-reference list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it spends most of its length interpreting status field values, which is useful but overlaps with what the output schema likely documents. It omits guidance on error cases (invalid task_id) and how this tool relates to its five siblings, leaving gaps for an agent navigating the workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only one required parameter (task_id), schema coverage is 0% but the schema itself constrains the UUID format. The description adds no information about task_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for a zero-description single-param tool, but no extra value is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear purpose ('查询持久任务状态' = query persistent task status), correctly identifying a read of task state. However, the bulk of the text shifts to interpreting status semantics rather than clarifying what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings, leaving the core purpose somewhat buried.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit conditional guidance: when needs_review, choose choices; when blocked with waiting_for, handle the related task first, then retry to verify. This is actionable 'when to do what' context. It does not, however, name sibling tools or clarify when to use get_task versus get_download_url or download_book's status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.